Sen. Tom Coburn Vows No Cream Puff Questions for Elena Kagan

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the histrionic legislator famously caught contemplating a crossword puzzle during the 2005 Supreme Court confirmation hearing for John Roberts, wants you to know that he's not going to go quite as easy on nominee Elena Kagan when she appears later this month before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Turns out the senator is fed up with Supreme Court nominees who fail or refuse to directly answer questions posed to them during the long public sessions that make up the bulk of judicial confirmation hearings. He believes that even the most noble court wannabes ought to be judged by their past professional records and judgments and not by the soft-shoe words they use before the committee with their future (and lifetime) employment on the line.

In remarks Thursday on the floor of the Senate, Coburn said: "I'll finish by saying that consideration of any judge in the future in terms of this senator is going to be borne out by what they've said before they got to the committee, not what they say to the committee, because we can no longer, as a body, trust what the nominees say in committee."

Coburn is partly right. Each of the three nominees he has judged for the Supreme Court have indeed been less than candid about their judicial philosophies and their political inclinations. They have pulled their punches. They have refused to share with the public, or apparently even Coburn, their views about core constitutional principles and standards. They've employed the now-famous "Ginsburg Rule" to stop persistent questioning from senators who want to know exactly who and what they are voting upon. The "talk to the hand" approach from nominees has been bipartisan and unanimous.

Before he became chief justice of the United States, for example, John Roberts coolly lectured to Coburn and Company about being a neutral "umpire," calling only balls and strikes, before he was voted onto the court. Less than five years later, however, Roberts led the court to its most "activist" ruling in a generation, its decision early this year in the Citizens Unitedcase, which gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and threw open the floodgates to corporate domination of campaign ads. Indeed, as legal analyst and Supreme Court author Jeff Toobin pointed out a few months ago, the chief justice has been anything but neutral or even much of an umpire:

In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than [Justice Antonin] Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

Yet, after putting down his crossword puzzle back in September 2005, what did Coburn ask of the nominee? He mustered up this question for his ideological soul mate: "So the only question I would have for you is this one final -- and I will finish, I hope, before 10 minutes are consumed. Where'd our law -- would you teach the American public where our law came from? I mean, there was law before the American Revolution. Where did our law come from? Where'd it come from?" Ever able to play the straight man, Roberts replied: "Well, before the revolution, of course, we were under the British legal system." Good enough. Coburn voted to confirm Roberts.

Meanwhile, before he became a Supreme Court justice in January 2006, staunch conservative jurist Samuel Alito stonewalled the committee for two days, offering even fewer nuggets of insight and candor than did Roberts. At the time, however, Coburn didn't ask for a more detailed explanation. He didn't complain about inconsistencies. Instead, he delivered to nominee Alito the following doozie: "A lot of times in these hearings you don't get a chance to say why would you want to be a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States? Why would you want that responsibility? Why do you want to go through this process to be able to achieve that position? Can you tell the American people why?" Said Alito: "I think it's a chance to make a contribution. I think it's a chance to use whatever talent I have in the most productive way that I can think of." Good enough. Coburn voted to confirm Alito.

It clearly didn't bother Coburn when both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito donned their robes and quickly turned into precisely the sort of conservative activists their patrons had hoped they would be. The nomination process was not "broken down" back then. But apparently it is now, he says, now that a Democratic president is nominating jurists like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the court. So a senator who gleefully kowtowed to the court's conservative nominees -- when he wasn't futzing with the crossword -- is proudly declaring he's now out to tag its progressive ones.

The senator's specific charge against Sotomayor is that she was less than candid and consistent with him about her views of the use of international law in domestic jurisprudence. "Her statements before she comes before the committee are totally opposite of what she tells the committee and then what she's done since proves that her testimony before the committee was totally meaningless," he said Thursday. "We have to change the process."

There is irony on top of hypocrisy here -- or maybe it's vice versa. Coburn is angry with Justice Sotomayor -- and threatening to take it out on nominee Kagan in three weeks -- even though he took a much different approach to Sotomayor's confirmation hearing than he had with the two Bush-era appointees. He is angry even though Sotomayor's answers to him were arguably more complete than were the answers given by her predecessors to Democratic senators. And he is angry even though the court's new conservatives are at least as ideologically driven as the court's new liberals are bound to be.

Last summer, for example, Coburn's first question to nominee Sotomayor was straightforward and legitimate and of a sort altogether different from the cream puffs he had delivered to nominees Roberts and Alito. "You've been asked a lot of questions about abortion," Coburn asked the wise Latina. "And you've said that Roe v. Wade is settled law. Where are we today? What is the settled law in America about abortion?" Said Sotomayor: "I can speak to what the court has set in its precedent." Good enough. Coburn voted against Sotomayor and almost certainly will vote against nominee Kagan as well.

Is Coburn angry that nominee Sotomayor was just as deft in blocking his questions as nominees Roberts and Alito were in blocking legitimate queries from Democratic committee members? Is he angry that he got in trouble, and rightly so, for mocking Sotomayor during his questioning and comments period? Is he just angry that another liberal/progressive is going to make it onto the court? Perhaps someone ought to ask him.

In the meantime, let's all agree that the good senator from Oklahoma is unlikely to waste his time or ours by asking Kagan to explain to us what law governed the colonies at the time of the Revolution.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I realize we're trying to engage in civil dialogue here, but it seems like you're more interested in attacking Sen. Coburn than in promoting Ms Kagan's merits. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone.

Taking into consideration the caliber of people Obama s haput up for different positions, most of them are not qualified, are tax evaders, or have dubious backgrounds. Just because someone went to college or University, graduated, taught classes doesn't mean squat. If someone doesn't have enough common sense or the ability to think their way out of a grocery bag then they shouldn't be nominated for any position. If a potential nominee won't answers questions, or evade questions put forth to them then they shouldn't even be considered. They do not have a special exempt status when it comes to vetting process for the highest court in the land or any other position connected to the Government. Our elected representatives better start remembering their oaths of office and start doing their jobs right because the citizens of the USA are fed up.

If the repubs don't want her all they have to do is not let her nomination leave the judiciary committe. They can do that by none of them voting for her even though they are the minority party. The rules require at least one repub on the committee to vote for her to get her nomination to the foor for a full vote of the Senate. Graham will palaver on and on about his misgivings but will in the end give her that one necessary repub vote.

I hope that the Senators realize that the American voter has had it up to here... about the awful treatment they have been getting in all areas from Congress .... and any more grandstanding from Senators.... will backfire on these representatives who work for the voters ..... come the next election....What most of the public wants is to fill the empty Supreme Court Justice seat with some body .....who is capable and has expressed a desire to serve as a Supreme Court Justice who will protect and preserve the US Constitution in the administration of the laws.